Agassi's ground stroke shotmaking was top 2-3 all time, IMO. He had the greatest backhand in tennis history and one of the best forehands. But, he didn't have the mobility to put that shotmaking to its best use. Agassi explains that he had a congenital lumbar spine defect that affected his mobility as he got older, which can clearly be seen. It seems to me that Agassi was hitting the ball better than ever in the late 90's, early 2000's, but, his mobility decline offset that. He compensated well by standing in close and cutting off angles. But, against players like Sampras and Federer, Agassi's lack of world class mobility was exposed.

PS: I would also say that Agassi's peak level of play might have been higher than Lendl, McEnroe or Connors. But, it was too sporatic, and not sufficiently sustained, to give him full credit for that. Compare Borg, whose career was short, but, it was virtually all peak with a ridiculous winning percentage, especially at the majors with 11 titles out of 27 attempts.

That sounds probably right. He could be a bit higher or maybe lower. Let's see who is probably ahead of Agassi--Tilden, H L Doherty, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Sampras, Borg, Kramer, Nadal, Perry, Budge, Vines, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Hoad. Some may be somewhat arguable and some are no brainers ahead of Agassi.

Here's some that are also possibilities to be ahead of Agassi-Trabert, Djokovic (I think he's already better than Agassi at his peak but for the career, not yet), Sedgman (also probably better than Agassi at his peak and arguably for career), Emerson, Segura (I think he may be better overall if you take into account the strength of the Old Pro Tour ), Newcombe, Gimeno (was a great player but played on the Old Pro Tour), Ashe. Some of these players may be below Agassi in some ways but you can argue they were superior at top level.

For example Arthur Ashe won according to Vainqueurs 71 tournaments in his career. He probably won more. Ashe won the first US Open, Wimbledon and the Australian plus he was the 1975 WCT Championship which essentially was a major at that time. At his best Ashe was incredible with his huge flat first serve and his great wide swinging slice serve with power off both sides. Push come to shove I would pick Agassi as the overall better player but Ashe on a medium to fast court, if he was playing well in my opinion would be favored over Agassi.

In overall effect on the tennis, he'd be top 3. In shot making, I'd agree with Limpinhitter, he's top 5. Just between the lines, as a pure tennis player, he may not be top 10. He was just too up and down fitness wise, focus, etc. BTW, he was by far my favorite tennis player growing up even though I emulated my game after Sampras because I thought Sampras was the better player.

Agassi's ground stroke shotmaking was top 2-3 all time, IMO. He had the greatest backhand in tennis history and one of the best forehands. But, he didn't have the mobility to put that shotmaking to its best use. Agassi explains that he had a congenital lumbar spine defect that affected his mobility as he got older, which can clearly be seen. It seems to me that Agassi was hitting the ball better than ever in the late 90's, early 2000's, but, his mobility decline offset that. He compensated well by standing in close and cutting off angles. But, against players like Sampras and Federer, Agassi's lack of world class mobility was exposed.

PS: I would also say that Agassi's peak level of play might have been higher than Lendl, McEnroe or Connors. But, it was too sporatic, and not sufficiently sustained, to give him full credit for that. Compare Borg, whose career was short, but, it was virtually all peak with a ridiculous winning percentage, especially at the majors with 11 titles out of 27 attempts.

Click to expand...

I'd hardly take offensive to a Lavertard listing Federer as second, but you don't have Rosewall in the top ten?

In any case, my list is hardly fixed, but my top ten (with Agassi outside) shapes like this:

All time Top 20.. Open era top 10.. Hes still the only player with a "true" Grand slam IMO. Achieved it under the most polarized conditions in the history of the game.. Not like winning 3 slams on grass and one on clay, or achieving under todays slow homogenized condition where you could just be a garden variety, defender-baseline ball whacker and easily win everywheres.

Agassi's ground stroke shotmaking was top 2-3 all time, IMO. He had the greatest backhand in tennis history and one of the best forehands. But, he didn't have the mobility to put that shotmaking to its best use. Agassi explains that he had a congenital lumbar spine defect that affected his mobility as he got older, which can clearly be seen. It seems to me that Agassi was hitting the ball better than ever in the late 90's, early 2000's, but, his mobility decline offset that. He compensated well by standing in close and cutting off angles. But, against players like Sampras and Federer, Agassi's lack of world class mobility was exposed.

PS: I would also say that Agassi's peak level of play might have been higher than Lendl, McEnroe or Connors. But, it was too sporatic, and not sufficiently sustained, to give him full credit for that. Compare Borg, whose career was short, but, it was virtually all peak with a ridiculous winning percentage, especially at the majors with 11 titles out of 27 attempts.

Click to expand...

But Limpin, Agassi never had one year in which he won 90% of his matches. Lendl, McEnroe and Connors AVERAGED winning over 90% of their matches over five years. That's true dominance. And I do think for one match a guy like McEnroe's best was superior to Andre's best. Agassi had super duper groundies but his movement wasn't that good compared to other greats. He looks flashy when he hits those fantastic winners of his off service return but he also got aced more than some other great returners and a number of players like Murray would tie him for percentage of return games won. Some had higher percentages of return games won lifetime.

But I'll give you the chance that Agassi's best MAY (maybe not also) be better for one match than the ones you mentioned.

I could never leave Rosewall outside the top 10. Way too much longevity as a persistent non ending top 2 or 3 player in the World, and a period of a few years as the best player too (which someone like Agassi sadly doesnt have).

Top 5? Top 10? Top 15? Exact number would be nice but even a rough figure is fine.

I'd put him in my top 10, maybe around 7.

Click to expand...

In the top ten. I don't include pre-Open era players....I have no base for evaluating Tilden, Pancho, etc. against modern players, so with that in mind, Andre would make the top ten...probably 7-10ish. I always forget someone when I do this, but quickly, it still goes something like this:

I could never leave Rosewall outside the top 10. Way too much longevity as a persistent non ending top 2 or 3 player in the World, and a period of a few years as the best player too (which someone like Agassi sadly doesnt have).

Click to expand...

3 of those must go in: Hoad, Perry, Newcombe and Kramer in, and maybe Sedgman.Vines,Agassi and Djokovic out.rest is OK for me ( although in a slight different order).Agassi can be in the top 15 but no way Vines and Djokovic are.Becker,Wilander or Edberg eat Djokovic for breakfast,lunch and dinner respectively ( up to this moment, at least)

It hurt Andre that he had to play his entire career (aside from his final 3 years but by that time he was old and with a bad back) vs another GOAT candidate in Sampras. Perhaps the best player to ever live as far as fast surfaces are concerned. I think Pete was a big reason why Andre's career sunk after the USO in 95 and didn't really surge back until 3 years later. He lost quite a few USO titles to Pete and another wimbledon or two IMO ( not to mention a WTF or two).

Unfortunate for Andre. He was only like 1 year apart from Pete so their careers/primes intertwined with each other. He didn't have like a 5-6 age difference where perhaps he was in his prime, Pete was yet to reach his or vice versa where he could have had the opportunity to gobble more big titles.

I think if Agassi had won that 95 U.S Open final he would be a top 5 player all time today. He would be atleast where Nadal is considered today, and probably above. That changed everything for a few years, and he got things all back together starting in mid 99, but by then he was pretty old for a tennis player and his ability to dominate and win alot was very limited.

Pete didnt exactly own from 96-98 like he did from 93-95 either, well in 97 he did pretty much, but not really in 96 and 98, so it would have been an even better opportunity for Agassi. I think he felt with the tennis he played in 95 he deserved atleast 2 slams and the year end #1 and to do over Pete would have given his confidence and belief he could hold his head up high in the rivalry. I am sure he knows there is no way you do that to Pete every year, but he would also know he had already done it atleast once and could do it again. Failing to do it when he had played so well that year, had been so utterly dominant on regular hard courts especialy, and when he knows Pete started the year with emotional problems as well, and to have those tough losses at 3 different slams that year (especialy the Wimbledon and U.S Open ones) was just too much to overcome pyschologically I think.

He also could hav easily ended the year #1 but pretty much gave up already on it after the U.S Open, I dont think he felt like a real #1 with having 1 less slam title and 1 less slam final than Sampras.

I could never leave Rosewall outside the top 10. Way too much longevity as a persistent non ending top 2 or 3 player in the World, and a period of a few years as the best player too (which someone like Agassi sadly doesnt have).

Click to expand...

It's fine that you mention Rosewall's longevity as a measure for greatness.

In the top ten. I don't include pre-Open era players....I have no base for evaluating Tilden, Pancho, etc. against modern players, so with that in mind, Andre would make the top ten...probably 7-10ish. I always forget someone when I do this, but quickly, it still goes something like this:

3 of those must go in: Hoad, Perry, Newcombe and Kramer in, and maybe Sedgman.Vines,Agassi and Djokovic out.rest is OK for me ( although in a slight different order).Agassi can be in the top 15 but no way Vines and Djokovic are.Becker,Wilander or Edberg eat Djokovic for breakfast,lunch and dinner respectively ( up to this moment, at least)

Seems like tennis started off with Big Bill Tilden, which may be at some point true form the popularity POV, but there are stars like Wilding,Mc Laughlin,Sears,Brookes, Doherty and the Renshaws that, had they had more press and radio coverage, would be much more talked about right now when time comes to elaborate a top 20 all time greats list.it is a pitty.

Seems like tennis started off with Big Bill Tilden, which may be at some point true form the popularity POV, but there are stars like Wilding,Mc Laughlin,Sears,Brookes, Doherty and the Renshaws that, had they had more press and radio coverage, would be much more talked about right now when time comes to elaborate a top 20 all time greats list.it is a pitty.

Click to expand...

I again agree but perhaps the depth of the tennis fields was a bit weaker than from Tilden times onwards.

Do you want to start a discussion like my long quarrels with Lobb and Limpinhitter?

I guess I will not learn in the rest of my life that you accept that Vines won more majors than Jan Kodes and that he won on two surfaces just like Kodes did.

I'm a rather old "kind" with my 63 years.... But you make me feel a bit younger!

Click to expand...

I really don't get it. He has no problem trumping up Laver's career based on pro majors, yet totally dismisses them when it comes to Vines, who beat great players like Nüsslein, Tilden, and Perry to win them.

I really don't get it. He has no problem trumping up Laver's career based on pro majors, yet totally dismisses them when it comes to Vines, who beat great players like Nüsslein, Tilden, and Perry to win them.

Click to expand...

You are right.

It's nice that you call Nüsslein a great player and that you spell his name correctly. Maybe you are German speaking. I do know that American computers often don't know the German "ü".

I can only see putting Rosewall in the top 10 based on his consistency and longevity. However, IMO, Rosewall's best was not as high as the other players on your list. I just don't see Rosewall having a winning record against any of these other players. And, I've seen all of them play, live and up close, with the exception of Gonzales. And, notwithstanding level of play, both Lendl and Connors had more career titles, in a shorter amount of time, against deeper fields, than Rosewall.

Don't let Limpinhitter make you uncertain regarding your all-time list and Rosewall's place in it.

Rosewall was strong enough to lead 10:7 against Laver in big events.

He played many tours instead of tournaments unlike to Connors and Lendl who always played tourneys. Thus he won less tournaments but still at least 137!

Rosewall cannot have a winning head to head against many of your top ten because he did not play against 6 of them and has a negative balance only against players above him in your top ten. He only played Borg when being almost 39...

Don't let Limpinhitter make you uncertain regarding your all-time list and Rosewall's place in it

Rosewall was strong enough to lead 10:7 against Laver in big events.

He played many tours instead of tournaments unlike to Connors and Lendl who always played tourneys. Thus he won less tournaments but still at least 137!

Rosewall cannot have a winning head to head against many of your top ten because he did not play against 6 of them and has a negative balance only against players above him in your top ten. He only played Borg when being almost 39...

As you might have seen in the Limpinhitter/BobbyOne discussion, Limpinhitter tries all tricks to put down Rosewall's greatness...

Click to expand...

Didn't Rosewall defeat Vilas in 1976 on grass in a tournament I believe was called something like the Tournament of the Americas? I think Rosewall crushed Vilas losing only a few games in three sets. Rosewall was around 42.

I can only see putting Rosewall in the top 10 based on his consistency and longevity.

Click to expand...

Consistency and longevity should both be MAJOR factors in any all time list. Also consider had it been Open tennis then Rosewall would be top 3 all time in slam wins, maybe even leading the list. He would have more slams than Federer who most people have in the top 2 or 3 today. I cant see anyway he is outside the top 10.

Didn't Rosewall defeat Vilas in 1976 on grass in a tournament I believe was called something like the Tournament of the Americas? I think Rosewall crushed Vilas losing only a few games in three sets. Rosewall was around 42.

Click to expand...

pc1, Yes, Rosewall at 42 beat Vilas 6-2,6-2,6-0 in the International Challenge Australia vs. the Americas. About two weeks later Vilas reached final of the AO...

Consistency and longevity should both be MAJOR factors in any all time list. Also consider had it been Open tennis then Rosewall would be top 3 all time in slam wins, maybe even leading the list. He would have more slams than Federer who most people have in the top 2 or 3 today. I cant see anyway he is outside the top 10.

Click to expand...

Thanks, NadalAgassi for your arguments.

In my speculations regarding an always open tennis, Rosewall would have won about 25 majors, equal with Gonzalez and behind only Tilden (who probably had weaker opposition than Gonzalez, Laver and Rosewall). By the way I give Laver "only" around 20 open majors because of his shorter career than Gonzalez and Rosewall had. These four are my all-time greatest players, followed by Borg.

Not the worst list but you overrate Emerson (as many do) . His 12 major titles don't mean too much. He is the only player in your list who never was No.1!

And you should include Jack Kramer.

Click to expand...

I just can't put someone like Kramer in there and leave Emerson out. Emerson beat Laver in two of those slams finals, that's convincing enough that he's a top level player. Hoad and Kramer I find overrated, would never put them in a top 20 list.

I just can't put someone like Kramer in there and leave Emerson out. Emerson beat Laver in two of those slams finals, that's convincing enough that he's a top level player. Hoad and Kramer I find overrated, would never put them in a top 20 list.

Click to expand...

Emerson beat Laver in the amateurs and Rod became better than Emerson while still in the amateur. Laver improved immensely in the pros when he took on Rosewall, Hoad, Gonzalez, Gimeno, Sedgman among others. Emerson won all his majors during the era that pros weren't allowed to enter the majors. I doubt if he would have had 12 majors won if Open tennis was around.

Kramer was in my opinion clearly ahead of Emerson. He dominated the pros for a number of years winning tours over Riggs, Gonzalez, Sedgman, Segura. Many of the pros who played him rank him as the best or among the best they have played. These people include Gonzalez, Segura and Sedgman. Sedgman for example I believe ranked Kramer as the best player he faced and ranked Kramer's serve and Gonzalez's serve about equal. At his best Kramer was incredible.

Consistency and longevity should both be MAJOR factors in any all time list. Also consider had it been Open tennis then Rosewall would be top 3 all time in slam wins, maybe even leading the list. He would have more slams than Federer who most people have in the top 2 or 3 today. I cant see anyway he is outside the top 10.

Click to expand...

Nevertheless, I can't see Rosewall with a winning record against anyone in my top 10.